As a parent I know exactly how to deal with a situation like this. Do whatever I want.
As nitwittery goes, this isn't the tip of an iceberg or the 1st drop of an oncoming wave. It's an absolutely average example of a subset of parents that have always and will always exist in the %'s they do now.
Getting worked up about people who are having little-to-no long term effect, is a lot like getting worked about a book that has little-to-no long term effect.
Language is strongest when existing words retain their meanings for long periods of time. The more often words change meaning, the more likely we are to misunderstand each other.
Debates and lectures lose their power to move people, when there's no common agreement on what's being said.
OED became authoritative because of it's slowness to update definitions. But in the last generation, OED has been updating definitions more frequently and it is no longer the stronghold of English.
The result is definitions become increasingly slippery and the power of communication shifts from teaching to manipulation.
The time to speak up about broad, redundant legislation was during the passage of Hate Crime legislation. You'll just confuse lawmakers by saying redundant HC laws are necessary but redundant KO laws are counterproductive.
Assaulting another human being is the crime that needs to legislated and we have lots of laws on the books to handle that.
The Yahoo article was amended with the following: "CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the papers had been illegally-downloaded."
A technical correction that allows the author to continue to mislead his readers. Maybe he's prepping for a job w/ a US Intel agency.
"but at least journalists have an outlet for speaking out about it. An unknown number of others face equal or possibly worth treatment and there's absolutely no recourse at all."
The unknown number of others do have an outlet - called JOURNALISTS. Except that few journalists have any inclination to discuss US Gov atrocities, at least until it happens to them.
Regarding surveillance and terror threats, Pres Obama and Rep King are on the same page. The difference between these men is the rhetoric they choose, to achieve their common goal.
Like any good narcissist, I post stuff on public services that I want people to read.
When I post criticism about the FDA, the FDA is at the top of the list of who I'd want to read it.
That's how public media works. I have an clear expectation that anything I post publicly can be scraped and compiled into a database, at any time.
Saying the FDA shouldn't have it is even dumber than saying Gov employees can't read classified stuff after it's been leaked online.
Now if the FDA were buying my browsing history from my ISP, or copying my email from my provider, I'd be seriously cheesed because I didn't overtly consent to it.
But that isn't the case. The FDA wants info that I put out there for everyone. Besides. it may be the only time my Gov actually cares about something I say.
(Disclaimer: Conservative for 20+ years, liberal before that.)
I have 2 blanket statements to make about conservatives, liberals and surveillance.
BS#1: "Any conservative candidate that survives into office will expand the surveillance state as much as possible."
I think most honest conservatives and liberals would agree with that statement.
BS#2: "Any liberal candidate that survives into office will expand the surveillance state as much as possible."
Here's where it gets weird.
Conservatives - They tend to be pro-surveillance and anti-liberal. I wouldn't want an opinion born from that mix.
Liberals - I don't know what to think about liberals. I suspect that as long as a Dem candidate is breaking some kind of social barrier (female, LGBT, whatever), most liberals will enthusiastically believe any campaign promise made about surveillance reform and transparency.
They shouldn't.
Candidate Obama had an extraordinarily good mindset about Surveillance, in 2007. However, Obama's conversion to the Surveillance-Dark-Side began before he was even elected. By the time Pres Obama was a year into office, he was fully turned.
In my opinion, far too many liberals are in denial about this.
Since conservatives are on the wrong side of the surveillance issue and (afaik) liberal ideology abhors a surveillance state then we need our liberals to denounce and help roll back constitutional surveillance.
But if liberals will only acknowledge surveillance abuses under a Republican PotUS, they are (at best) as bad as conservatives.
Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues
Hollywood's war on consumers is more about content control than anything else.
It's why MPAA Members sued CleanFlicks and other film sanitizers out of existence even though those services clearly benefited film makers' bottom line.
Netflix has some of that same dysfunction by their decade long refusal to implement a search by rating, even though it's a top requested feature.
Netflix may have looser reins but they still like to hang on to some of that "Just Because" control.
"Criminals and terrorists now have access to a dizzying array of information, with devastating implications"
Most people on the planet have access to "a dizzying array of information" and yes, a few of them are criminals and terrorists. However, the devastating implications that worries power brokers isn't really tied to the safety of citizens.
I'll rehash the 'Internet = Wild West' analogy and remind Mr. Clegg that new frontiers are always a bit uncivilized. In America's Wild West, the higher risks were eventually mitigated by building safer institutions, not by intimidating the civilian population with government thuggery and a layer of constant surveillance.
I will grant that there were times when 19th Century American Government did over-flex it's muscles. Usually it involved sending the Military in to slaughter and relocate inconvenient Native Americans, often in response to deep-pocketed campaign donors who wanted the land for their own purposes.
Mr. Clegg can easily find parallels in Britain's own colonial history. (Assuming his look at history consists of more than cherry picked details from a rewritten past.)
Given the gushing outpouring of Press Love that followed Obama into the presidency
and
given the general ineptitude of most US news outlets, why would Pres Obama expect to be challenged on this?
On the post: Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers
Anyone with an ounce of ethical backbone is already avoiding them.
It's the stripper's own fault for not moving her accounts to a smaller bank years ago.
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
On the post: Censorious Parent Calls Cops On Teen Giving Away Books In A Local Park
Do whatever I want.
As nitwittery goes, this isn't the tip of an iceberg or the 1st drop of an oncoming wave.
It's an absolutely average example of a subset of parents that have always and will always exist in the %'s they do now.
Getting worked up about people who are having little-to-no long term effect,
is a lot like getting worked about a book that has little-to-no long term effect.
On the post: Oxford English Dictionary: Killed And Saved By The Internet
Debates and lectures lose their power to move people, when there's no common agreement on what's being said.
OED became authoritative because of it's slowness to update definitions.
But in the last generation, OED has been updating definitions more frequently and it is no longer the stronghold of English.
The result is definitions become increasingly slippery and the power of communication shifts from teaching to manipulation.
On the post: Connecticut Lawmakers Push 'Knockout Game' Bill, Citing Various 'Feelings' As Evidence Something Must Be Done
You'll just confuse lawmakers by saying redundant HC laws are necessary but redundant KO laws are counterproductive.
Assaulting another human being is the crime that needs to legislated and we have lots of laws on the books to handle that.
On the post: Describing Public Domain Works As 'Pirated' And 'Illegal' Is Bad For Everyone
A correction that corrects nothing
"CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the papers had been illegally-downloaded."
A technical correction that allows the author to continue to mislead his readers.
Maybe he's prepping for a job w/ a US Intel agency.
On the post: Newscasters Reenact Final Four Moments Rather Than Wait For Game Highlight Rights To Clear
Well played.
On the post: KlearGear No-Shows Hearing, Reinstates $3,500 Non-Disparagement Clause
Re:
http://www.blagnet.net/2013/11/18/my-review-of-kleargear-com/
On the post: Homeland Security Relies On Secrecy To Violate People's Rights And Humiliate Them At The Border
An unknown number of others face equal or possibly worth treatment and there's absolutely no recourse at all."
The unknown number of others do have an outlet - called JOURNALISTS.
Except that few journalists have any inclination to discuss US Gov atrocities, at least until it happens to them.
On the post: Peter King Hates Your Civil Liberties; Flips Out About His Own Party Rejecting Unconstitutional Spying On Americans
The Dark Side of the Force
The difference between these men is the rhetoric they choose, to achieve their common goal.
On the post: The FDA Wants To Dig Through Everyone's Stuff In Order To 'Monitor Online Sentiment'
I'm not sure this is a problem
When I post criticism about the FDA, the FDA is at the top of the list of who I'd want to read it.
That's how public media works. I have an clear expectation that anything I post publicly can be scraped and compiled into a database, at any time.
Saying the FDA shouldn't have it is even dumber than saying Gov employees can't read classified stuff after it's been leaked online.
Now if the FDA were buying my browsing history from my ISP, or copying my email from my provider, I'd be seriously cheesed because I didn't overtly consent to it.
But that isn't the case. The FDA wants info that I put out there for everyone.
Besides. it may be the only time my Gov actually cares about something I say.
On the post: Liberals And Conservatives Switch Positions On NSA Surveillance Depending On If 'Their Guy' Is In Power
I have 2 blanket statements to make about conservatives, liberals and surveillance.
BS#1:
"Any conservative candidate that survives into office will expand the surveillance state as much as possible."
I think most honest conservatives and liberals would agree with that statement.
BS#2:
"Any liberal candidate that survives into office will expand the surveillance state as much as possible."
Here's where it gets weird.
Conservatives - They tend to be pro-surveillance and anti-liberal.
I wouldn't want an opinion born from that mix.
Liberals - I don't know what to think about liberals.
I suspect that as long as a Dem candidate is breaking some kind of social barrier (female, LGBT, whatever), most liberals will enthusiastically believe any campaign promise made about surveillance reform and transparency.
They shouldn't.
Candidate Obama had an extraordinarily good mindset about Surveillance, in 2007.
However, Obama's conversion to the Surveillance-Dark-Side began before he was even elected.
By the time Pres Obama was a year into office, he was fully turned.
In my opinion, far too many liberals are in denial about this.
Since conservatives are on the wrong side of the surveillance issue
and (afaik) liberal ideology abhors a surveillance state
then we need our liberals to denounce and help roll back constitutional surveillance.
But if liberals will only acknowledge surveillance abuses under a Republican PotUS, they are (at best) as bad as conservatives.
On the post: British Newspaper Confuses Deus Ex With Real Life
On the post: The Trustworthy Government Officials Delusion: Eventually Any Program Will Be Abused
Re:
It infers that we haven't had overtly abusive administrations since Nixon when the overwhelming evidence indicates quite the opposite.
On the post: The Trustworthy Government Officials Delusion: Eventually Any Program Will Be Abused
Those in the press who believe the above is false will never mention it.
Where do your news outlets stand?
On the post: Kevin Spacey: Give Users Control, What They Want, When They Want It, At A Fair Price, And Stop Worrying About Piracy
Netflix shares a few of Hollywood's control freak issues
It's why MPAA Members sued CleanFlicks and other film sanitizers out of existence even though those services clearly benefited film makers' bottom line.
Netflix has some of that same dysfunction by their decade long refusal to implement a search by rating, even though it's a top requested feature.
Netflix may have looser reins but they still like to hang on to some of that "Just Because" control.
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks
On the post: UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg Defends Hard Drive Destruction, But Not Miranda Detention
Most people on the planet have access to "a dizzying array of information" and yes, a few of them are criminals and terrorists. However, the devastating implications that worries power brokers isn't really tied to the safety of citizens.
I'll rehash the 'Internet = Wild West' analogy and remind Mr. Clegg that new frontiers are always a bit uncivilized. In America's Wild West, the higher risks were eventually mitigated by building safer institutions, not by intimidating the civilian population with government thuggery and a layer of constant surveillance.
I will grant that there were times when 19th Century American Government did over-flex it's muscles. Usually it involved sending the Military in to slaughter and relocate inconvenient Native Americans, often in response to deep-pocketed campaign donors who wanted the land for their own purposes.
Mr. Clegg can easily find parallels in Britain's own colonial history. (Assuming his look at history consists of more than cherry picked details from a rewritten past.)
On the post: Snowden Accuses UK Gov't Of Leaking Documents He Never Leaked To Make Him Look Bad
On the post: Simple Question: How Could President Obama Not Know That Ed Snowden Had The IG Report That Showed Widespread NSA Abuse?
Re: Re: why would Pres Obama expect to be challenged on this?
Readers of WaPo and the Guardian tend to be folks who vote against both the Repub and Dems (the parties who support surveillance abuse)?
I'm not so sure about that.
On the post: Simple Question: How Could President Obama Not Know That Ed Snowden Had The IG Report That Showed Widespread NSA Abuse?
and
given the general ineptitude of most US news outlets, why would Pres Obama expect to be challenged on this?
Next >>